Do you think we will ever get realistic water physics in games?

[The Wok]

I never seen real water physics in a game. For example: if there is water in a bucket and you take off the bucket the water is not gonna move, there is no fluid physics

[Devsman]

Originally posted by Candyy ♡:

Your example was super Nintendo games, we can all agree they look garbage

TF is wrong with you

There are plenty of SNES games that are beautiful

[omrvinka99]

Originally posted by Handsome Dude:

I never seen real water physics in a game. For example: if there is water in a bucket and you take off the bucket the water is not gonna move, there is no fluid physics

hmm, i would like to have this in games but who knows~ it must me extremely hard for graphic team and program it but yeah~

[Wolf Ticket]

Cape and clothes flutter and wrinkles as well.

[JobeGardener]

The games with the best looking water are the games that won't let you go into it.

[Haruspex]

They can fake it.

Remember this?
https://store.steampowered.com/app/92000/Hydrophobia_Prophecy/

A developer will implement more realistic water physics when a genuine design/gameplay need asks for it. Until then it's cheaper and simpler just to fake it.

[The Wok]

Originally posted by 8bitbeard:

They can fake it.

Remember this?
https://store.steampowered.com/app/92000/Hydrophobia_Prophecy/

A developer will implement more realistic water physics when a genuine design/gameplay need asks for it. Until then it's cheaper and simpler just to fake it.

I just watched a gameplay video of this game and damn, for a sec i thought it was real fluid physics. They faked it really well

[eEXM-21]

eventually yes
and people start ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ and whining over other games not having that

[MinionJoe]

"No. We already have realistic water physics at home."

[DrummerJacob]

Originally posted by Handsome Dude:

I never seen real water physics in a game. For example: if there is water in a bucket and you take off the bucket the water is not gonna move, there is no fluid physics

Rust has what I consider to be fairly realistic water. It has waves, the boats interact with those waves and make it bounce randomly, swimming has you sometimes going through a wave and not always perfectly over, sometimes in the wave/under water, just like in real life.

And the water washes up on shore and makes noises. The only thing its lacking in is tides, but I can do without that because people would build bases during low tide and not realize why their base is underwater later on. :)

[a Gabriel! Santos, Mariano.]

The early ps3 tech demo with rubber ducks is as good as it gets. Circa 2006.

[linis]

Developers are constantly pushing the envelope. It wouldn't surprise me if we get more advanced fluid mechanics as time goes on.

Reminds me of the CellFactor: Revolution tech demo which used some fairly advanced physics simulation mechanics back in 2007. It's mostly a matter of time before someone decides to push things further for their video game project.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wj48Yqnm0ZM

[Irene ❤]

The water in Mario world 2-2 (nintendo) is realistic enough.

[linis]

Originally posted by Irene ❤:

The water in Mario world 2-2 (nintendo) is realistic enough. :erune:

I can't think of any particular game which had that much interaction with water back then, when it first released. You got me thinking of Ecco the Dolphin now.
The first game I thought of, when I saw this topic, was Wave Race on the Nintendo 64.

[sotaponi]

Originally posted by Devsman:

I don't think we'll ever have photorealistic anything, but there have been pretty impressive water effects for quite some time.

I can think of two games with really good water going back as far as the PS3: Uncharted 1 and Ass Creed IV.

lol me, I didn't read.

Seems like the kind of thing that wouldn't be worth it. I mean, most of the time you're not going to be taking the bucket away from the water, and if you do, for example, break a dam, you can treat that as a special event and get specific with it.

As opposed to calculating, say, a hundred million points every frame.

The "a hundred million points every frame" bit reminds me of how "AI" chatbots tend to state themselves overwhelmed by (analogously) trillions of photons entering their eyes. Only that these "AIs" are overwhelmed by the input of trillions of artificial neurons, which pale in comparison to the conscious performance of the human brain, even without external input.

We would never say that we see "the activation of billions of neurons in the visual cortex" and that this is somehow "overwhelming" to us. Instead, we have a singular coherent image and a conscious self, that can also reason beyond dimensional illusions and is objective to itself along the lines of "cogito ergo sum."

And these AIs pale even when compared to a tiny bird and its tiny brain, if you compare a bird's ability to navigate, to a Tesla or the Tesla robot. (In the Tesla video from the other day, they did actually show a video of how a Tesla robot "renders" the world. Which was pretty poor. If that is allowed on the road; moreso should be those driving under heavy influence.)

So how exactly that works (also in case you do actually see fluid mechanics in hyperreal action during NDEs/DMT experiences)... probably tied to phenomena such as quantum physics in a gravitational+ context (dimensional illusions etc)...

And you have to acknowledge that the human brain is smaller (or has a better structural folding) than the latest Nvidia GPU. Also especially the relatively tiny brains of e.g. crows. With crows being seemingly self-aware and intelligent tool users.

Problem of course being that, if (big if) it becomes possible to "render" such mechanics to an external observer, you're effectively enslaving a conscious being. Unless you simply improve your own brain. Or you create a good enough simulacrum with classical computers that don't involve macro forms, even if that might be wasteful. Or maybe there are ways of creating unconscious computers that can still perform in such a unified macro (i.e. quantum physics in a gravity/dark energy kind of qualia context) way. Who knows.

[MoonC A T]

If water physics bothers you, I hate to see what else you are nitcpicky about.